You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Dear forum members,
Eupedia moved to a new server last week. If the forum tells you that the page has unsafe scripts, or if anything doesn't work properly on the forum, just clear your browser cache and cookies and everything should go back to normal.

View Poll Results: Should foreigners be allowed to run for public office in your country?

Should foreigners be allowed to run for public office in a country?

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti - A wealthy U.S. businessman whose bid to run for president of Haiti was rejected by electoral authorities defiantly pledged Saturday to fight for a spot on the ballot in his native country's first election since the February 2004 ouster of Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dumarsais Simeus, owner of one of the largest black-owned business in the United States, said he has appealed to the Provisional Electoral Council to reverse its decision to strike his name from the list of presidential candidates in the Nov. 20 election and will do "everything possible," including filing a legal challenge if necessary, to participate in the race.

"This election, without us being allowed to participate as a presidential candidate, will have no legitimacy whatsoever," Simeus, the son of illiterate Haitian rice farmers, said at a news conference in the capital.

The electoral council late Friday issued a list of 32 approved presidential candidates — a diverse group that includes former government officials from across the political spectrum and a leader of the rebellion that forced President Aristide out of office and into exile in South Africa.

Simeus, the 65-year-old owner of a Texas-based food services company, was rejected because he has U.S. citizenship, said Rosemond Pradel, the council's secretary-general.

The businessman, who has lived outside his native country for more than 40 years, told reporters that he has always maintained links to Haiti and his citizenship should not be an issue.

"I was born in Haiti. I have Haitian nationality. This is not negotiable. Period."

Garry Lisade, an attorney for the businessman, said the electoral council misinterpreted Haitian election law, which requires that any objection to a candidacy be lodged within 72 hours of the Sept. 15 filing deadline. Simeus had already received confirmation of the "provisional acceptance" of his candidacy, the campaign said.

If the electoral council does not reverse it's decision, Simeus said he would appeal to the Supreme Court.

Simeus, who has said he hopes to use his business skills to help the economy of the Western Hemisphere's poorest nation, said he asked the council for an explanation of its decision but has not received a response. In any case, he said he had no intention of abandoning his bid for the presidency.

"We are in this battle to stay," he said. "We are in this battle to change the country."

The council, which rejected 22 presidential candidates, accepted the candidacies of two presumed front-runners: former President Rene Preval, a one-time close ally of Aristide; and Marc Bazin, a former prime minister who is running as a candidate of a moderate faction of the ousted leader.

What about including diffent voting options for "people born and raised in the country without that country's nationality", "permanent residents", and "long-term residents (e.g. over 5 years in the countty; except permanent residents)" ? I would give voting rights to at least the 2 first.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

People who want to run for office in a foreign country MUST first obtain citizenship of said country.

I feel very strongly about this. Also the right to vote.

Why ? What about permanent residents who do not wish to lose their original nationality (e.g. me in Japan) because their country of birth or adoption does not recognise dual nationality ?

In my case, I cannot vote in Japan because I am not Japanese, but I cannot vote in Belgium (or other EU countries) because I moved my residence to Japan. Legally, any EU citizen can vote at local and EU elections in any EU country where they are resident (and one can only be resident of one place at a time). Not living in Europe, I have no right to vote anywhere, although I have the potential right to vote in 25 countries. The same is true for running for election, I think.

More importantly, this thread should focus on whether running for election should be free or not. In Japan candidates for elections must pay a 3,000,000 yen registration fee ! It basically prevents most ordinary people to run for election.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

In Japan candidates for elections must pay a 3,000,000 yen registration fee ! It basically prevents most ordinary people to run for election.

Wow. That is an unbelievable amount of money just to register. Maciamo, do you know how long this has been in effect in Japan? Also, does this apply for all elections (eg. local, prefecture, national).
I am of the same opinion that running for an election should be free (or at least more reasonable than 3 million yen). It falls into the same category of arguement as voting access. All voters should have equal access to the ballot - and, in this case, so should all people who seek election. Restricting access for citizens seeks to undermind democracy.

Why ? What about permanent residents who do not wish to lose their original nationality (e.g. me in Japan) because their country of birth or adoption does not recognise dual nationality ?

Let me start off by saying that I do not think that I should be an exception. Everything I say applies to myself as well.

Why? Does the word citizen have no meaning to you? I feel for you as a permanent resident. I am not knowledgeable about Belgium voting law, so I can not comment about that. However, for whatever reason, you chose to come here on your own free will, I assume (I'll talk about Korean residents later.) When you chose to move to a different country there were certain trade-offs, inherent in any choice, in the choice you made. There were aspects to your liking and aspects not to your liking. This voting and public office issue is one (or two) such example(s).

As Japan is an independent autonomous political unit, it has the fundamental right to decide for itself who should vote and hold political office. This in and of itself is enough for me, but let's elaborate.

First of all in a geopolitical context, right or wrong, as a US citizen, my loyalities are assumed to lie first and foremost with USA. The US has the right to draft me in wartime. No other country has this right, partly for this reason, I believe. I think that also for this reason, for example, if I am employed by a foreign government entity as a US citizen, barring extraordinary circumstances, They will not renew my passport. If my loyalties are to lie with the US, how am I supposed to represent people with conflicting loyalties? How does this make sense? And how do I expect to be taken seriously?

If I am not willing to give my native citizenship, what does this say about my commitment to the country I wish to participate in shaping? I think it speaks very poorly, because it leaves me a back door from which to leave if things don't go as well as I'd hoped. It shows that I'm not very serious about joining the people fully and equally, for better or for worse.

I would never vote for someone like that. Ever.

In terms of voting, I can understand wanting to vote, especially on the local level. I want to vote here myself. I had to turn away a telephone poll last month conducted by a regional newspaper because I do not have the right to vote. I didn't like it. But, I was not and am not a citizen. I, as a foreign national, can leave at any time. In other words, I do not have to take responsibility for my vote in the same way that a Japanese citizen does. It's the same as I said above.

As far as Korean nationals are concerned, it's true that many of them did not chose to live here. But, given the legality of their situation, if they want to participate in Japanese politics, they also should first become citizens. If they feel "Japanese" by their upbringing, they should apply for citizenship. They should make the effort. So should we if we are serious.

To put it simply, I see nationality/citizenship as a relic of 19th century and early 20th century nationalism. It is particularily irrelevant in my case, first because many Belgians do not really feel Belgian but European, secondly because I am not ethnically Belgian or speak "Belgian", thirdly because I have lived in 6 countries, speak 6 languages and I am married to someone from another country. Finally, because I don't think that I can trust politicians in any country, and certainly will never "fight for my country" as it would mean fight for them. Ideally it should be the other way round. If they want to fight, then they should go while I watch them on TV.

As Japan is an independent autonomous political unit, it has the fundamental right to decide for itself who should vote and hold political office.

I personally do not recognise government's rights to impose some unfair or undemocratic constraints on their citizens or any other citizen. I believe in universal human rights, which are higher than any government and thus cannot be overruled.

Also keep in mind that not every country can draft their citizens like you said. Belgium, the UK or Japan do not have conscription, for instance. In other words, people their are freer in this regard than in countries with conscription (like France, Italy, the US, Israel or South Korea).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

On an interesting note, doesnt US citizenship mean you have to give up any previous citizenships to other countries?....maybe thats the case in Haiti.

If he does want to have his Haitian citizenship and the US doesnt allow duel nationality, then the troubles around his ownership of an american company will be a thorn.

Ah i dunno what im talking about really, cant be bothered googling the rules around Haitian citizenship, but its an idea for american plans to take over the world, take nationals born in countries that allow duel citizenship, then send them back when their all trained...i mean grown up to become president.

Lol, conspiracy theory.

To put it simply, I see nationality/citizenship as a relic of 19th century and early 20th century nationalism. It is particularily irrelevant in my case, first because many Belgians do not really feel Belgian but European, secondly because I am not ethnically Belgian or speak "Belgian", thirdly because I have lived in 6 countries, speak 6 languages and I am married to someone from another country. Finally, because I don't think that I can trust politicians in any country, and certainly will never "fight for my country" as it would mean fight for them. Ideally it should be the other way round. If they want to fight, then they should go while I watch them on TV.

Thats a pretty special thing Mac, being a citizen of the world and being such an individual that can arguably say he doesnt belong entirely anywhere, but unfortunatly, like me included, most folk feel a sense of nationality, most folk feel a sense of belonging to a certain place and language and culture.

Im scottish, i feel connected to the local dialect and accent, the food, the culture, the geography, it is part of what defines me, and as international and open as i feel i am, i will always be scottish, i will always look back to my homeland if i am ever away, and i think its only fair that if a country must be governed, it should be governed by people who have been born here grown up here, and are scottish just like me....be scottish-indian, be scottish-japanese, but be scottish.

As much as i dont like many ways japan makes it difficult for anyone not japanese they to, have the right to be governed and led by a fellow countryman, someone who knows them.

You for an example Mac, you;ve lived in japan a lnog time i emagine, and you feel pretty confident you know the country and culture and language well, and you probably do but....your not actually japanese so, theres just that mindset, that mentality that you will always fail to get.

Its like the idea of allowing an african tribal man from the african grasslands to be expected to become US president and know what to do.

Politicians will always be fairly incompetent and useless but, at the least, they can have that natural inate understanding of the culture they lead.

As for the depper complexities of things such as nationals growing up abroad, gonig away and comming back, and all that, thats finer detail which you can decide on yourself, in your own time but yeah, at the basic scenario of noe native and one foreigner wanting to lead the country, the native should get it.

I am British only by an accident of birth. I consider myself lucky to live in an affluent country, but I am not at all patriotic. Maybe that's why I believe voting rights should depend on where you live, not where you were born - where you live obviously affects you more day to day than where you were born. But I wouldn't be really strict about it. It sounds like that guy has strong connections to Haiti. I certainly wouldn't support an American who has never lived in Haiti standing there, but someone who was born there and has family there, I don't see why it's a problem.

The cost of standing for election in Japan is insane. In the UK it costs GBP500, returnable if the candidate gets a certain percentage of the votes. I think that is OK - probably enough to discourage some nutters from standing, but easily raised by a serious candidate. The cost in Japan makes it impossible for an ordinary person to stand.

What about including diffent voting options for "people born and raised in the country without that country's nationality", "permanent residents", and "long-term residents (e.g. over 5 years in the countty; except permanent residents)" ? I would give voting rights to at least the 2 first.

I fully agree, for me integration would be the most important requirement.

Thats a pretty special thing Mac, being a citizen of the world and being such an individual that can arguably say he doesnt belong entirely anywhere, but unfortunatly, like me included, most folk feel a sense of nationality, most folk feel a sense of belonging to a certain place and language and culture.

Im scottish, i feel connected to the local dialect and accent, the food, the culture, the geography, it is part of what defines me, and as international and open as i feel i am, i will always be scottish, i will always look back to my homeland if i am ever away....

I did not say differently. I also look back at my "homeland". It's just that I feel a similar attachment to several countries, so it doesn't give an absolute priority to one in particular. I just can't forget about my experiences, the culture, language, people, etc. in the countries where I have lived. I haven't really spoken my mother-tongue (French) for the last 5 years. I now feel more comfortable with English, and more used to the Japanese lifestyle. So I feel somewhat strange when going back to Belgium. I feel I do not really belong there anymore, but cannot determine one country where I really belong. I feel as much at home in England, Belgium, France, Italy or Japan. In fact, I do feel at home when I am in Luxembourg or in the Netherlands although I have never lived there. It's just that the atmosphere is so similar to Belgium that it can feel more like home than even Japan. Can you understand this feeling ?

You for an example Mac, you;ve lived in japan a lnog time i emagine, and you feel pretty confident you know the country and culture and language well, and you probably do but....your not actually japanese so, theres just that mindset, that mentality that you will always fail to get.

Its like the idea of allowing an african tribal man from the african grasslands to be expected to become US president and know what to do.

I completely disagree. We are not talking about presidential elections, but just election (even local ones). In the EU, all citziens from the 25 membe countries have the right to run for the local and EU election in their district of residence, wherever they live. So, if a Pole wants to run for election in Spain, or a Greek in France or a Slovene in Scotland, they can. They can, even if they do not speak the language (well) or do not know anything about the local culture or affairs because they have just arrived. Yet, a non-European who has lived for 30 years in the same small Scottish town, knows many people around, speaks perfect Scottish English and know more about the region than many locals, may not be allowed to run for elections if he/she does not take on the British nationality. They may choose not to become British because they would lose their nationality and may have very difficult to visit their relatives in their home country, if that country does not make it easy for British citizens to go there. This person may become a very good politcian, but is refused the right to just run for election (no guarantee of being elected) just because of such a stupid thing as nationality ? Do you find this normal ? If the local people want to vote for that person, then why not ? If everybody objects, then he/she won't be elected anyway. But why not give this person a chance at least ?

Personally, I wouldn't want to give up my nationality for the Japanese one, because it gives me the right of a permanent resident with some voting rights in 25 countries (some where I have never been, others that I know very well).

Look at the US. Many people who weren't born there are allowed to run for election, even keeping their original nationality (as the US allows dual nationality). Schwatzeneger is one of those immigrant who became governor of the most important state (California has a bigger GDP than France or Britain), and became the most famous Republican politician after the president himself. I cannot grasp your example about the african tribal man in this case. I doubt that Schwarzeneger (not really a scholar, not even an intellectual) knows much better the US than I know Japan.

So now tell me, what's the difference between one person that decides to become American only because they can also keep their other nationality (otherwise they would not), and someone who doesn't because they would lose their original nationality ? The only difference is their original country's policy. Yet, their destiny may be completely different. One my become the governor of California, while the other would not even have the right to vote. This is not due to their feelings towards the US (which is the same), or toward their birth country (neither would give up their nationality). It's just about a stupid country's policy about dual citizenship - something that anyway can change with time and with the politicians in office. So why not allow dual nationality everywhere or nowhere, but give everyone the same chance ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

I am British only by an accident of birth. I consider myself lucky to live in an affluent country, but I am not at all patriotic. Maybe that's why I believe voting rights should depend on where you live, not where you were born - where you live obviously affects you more day to day than where you were born.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

I don't often make statements like this, but I think:
People who want to run for office in a foreign country MUST first obtain citizenship of said country.
I feel very strongly about this. Also the right to vote.

That's my answer too.

As long as they are LEGAL. Then I have no problem with it. They MUST be a citizen

That's my answer too.
As long as they are LEGAL. Then I have no problem with it. They MUST be a citizen

I can't understand your post. Being legal (resident), be a citizen and have a country's nationality are 3 completely different things. If are a foreigner and have a valid visa, you are a legal resident. You need to be naturalised (and often renounce to your previous nationality) to become a national. Citizenship just means that you have the right to vote or be elected. Some nationals don't have that right (some criminals) and foreigners in some countries do. For instance, some foreigners in Britain can vote at elections and be elected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

Yes my Taiwanese relatives who live in the U.S have dual citizenships.

I did not say differently. I also look back at my "homeland". It's just that I feel a similar attachment to several countries, so it doesn't give an absolute priority to one in particular. I just can't forget about my experiences, the culture, language, people, etc. in the countries where I have lived. I haven't really spoken my mother-tongue (French) for the last 5 years. I now feel more comfortable with English, and more used to the Japanese lifestyle. So I feel somewhat strange when going back to Belgium. I feel I do not really belong there anymore, but cannot determine one country where I really belong. I feel as much at home in England, Belgium, France, Italy or Japan. In fact, I do feel at home when I am in Luxembourg or in the Netherlands although I have never lived there. It's just that the atmosphere is so similar to Belgium that it can feel more like home than even Japan. Can you understand this feeling ?

I think I can, I have lived in East Malaysia, two cities in Australia and now France. I have no attachment with any places, any of the schools I have been to since I changed schools too often I feel I don't really bond with any of those schools or cities I have been with.

I completely disagree. We are not talking about presidential elections, but just election (even local ones). In the EU, all citziens from the 25 membe countries have the right to run for the local and EU election in their district of residence, wherever they live. So, if a Pole wants to run for election in Spain, or a Greek in France or a Slovene in Scotland, they can. They can, even if they do not speak the language (well) or do not know anything about the local culture or affairs because they have just arrived. Yet, a non-European who has lived for 30 years in the same small Scottish town, knows many people around, speaks perfect Scottish English and know more about the region than many locals, may not be allowed to run for elections if he/she does not take on the British nationality. They may choose not to become British because they would lose their nationality and may have very difficult to visit their relatives in their home country, if that country does not make it easy for British citizens to go there. This person may become a very good politcian, but is refused the right to just run for election (no guarantee of being elected) just because of such a stupid thing as nationality ? Do you find this normal ? If the local people want to vote for that person, then why not ? If everybody objects, then he/she won't be elected anyway. But why not give this person a chance at least ?

Hmmm I supposed in this case the person who lives there long enough and knows more about the country should have more right to run for public office.

Personally, I wouldn't want to give up my nationality for the Japanese one, because it gives me the right of a permanent resident with some voting rights in 25 countries (some where I have never been, others that I know very well).

Look at the US. Many people who weren't born there are allowed to run for election, even keeping their original nationality (as the US allows dual nationality). Schwatzeneger is one of those immigrant who became governor of the most important state (California has a bigger GDP than France or Britain), and became the most famous Republican politician after the president himself. I cannot grasp your example about the african tribal man in this case. I doubt that Schwarzeneger (not really a scholar, not even an intellectual) knows much better the US than I know Japan.

I saw a documentary about Schwarzenegger, when he first came to the U.S. he said to himself that he would one day become a movie star, be married to a prestigious member of the U.S. society and would run public office of the U.S. And he did it all, that documentary also said his father was a Nazi.

I saw a documentary about Schwarzenegger, when he first came to the U.S. he said to himself that he would one day become a movie star, be married to a prestigious member of the U.S. society and would run public office of the U.S. And he did it all, that documentary also said his father was a Nazi.

Perhaps, then, it really is the land of opportunity and dreams.

But, I wish the politicians there would work out a health care system so that people can afford it. Perhaps something like Japan`s that makes it, or at least the basices, affordable for all.

That said, I do think that foreignors with permanent legal residence status of 10 years should be able to run for city or perhaps even prvincial/prefectural/state legislative positions. Being a mayor should also be acceptable for foreignors. As for provincial/prefectural/state governors -- I am not so sure. Maybe for those positions the requirement for length of residency should be 15 or 20 years.

Once someone is naturalized and renounces citizenship of their original birth country, all positions should be open except for the presidency.

At the moment, that seems to be the position Arnold is in.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."--Albert Einstein

I reject the concept of "foreigner." If you come to live in my country and you do not carry any weapons you are welcome as my compatriot. That is my philosophy. Everyone shall be free to travel upon the planet we share without any restrictions which include being elected to a public office, in my opinion.